Author Topic: I wonder... (Read 1189 times)

Kephapaulos · « **on:** July 26, 2012, 11:43:34 PM »

If Bp. Williamson was the sort of protégé of Abp. Lefebvre, what prevented him from being elected as Superior General instead of Bp. Fellay (even though it was not desirable that the Superior General be a bishop but simply a priest)?

Also, was Bp. Williamson already being ostracized in some ways around the time of or shortly after Abp. Lefebvre's death?

Or was Bp. Fellay elected mainly because of his diplomatic skill?

Some of these questions may have answers in other threads, but I do not get to see everything said in every thread.

1531 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 27, 2012, 02:45:29 AM »

The first superior appointed was Fr Schmidberger. Mgr. Lefebvre was against the idea of having one of the bishops as superior as he feared it would place one of them over the other three, which would not be correct as all 4 were of equal standing. Mgr Lefebvre was proved to be right. +Fellay should never have been appointed afterward. It was a sad mistake by the Society, as we now witness.

Also their position was more specifically for the ordination of deacons and priests, to ensure the continuity of the priesthood in the SSPX, and also to administer the sacrament of Confirmation.

I must admit I do not know how +Fellay came to be appointed and why he stood. I also very much believe that another mistake by the Society was to elect any of them for such a long period of 12 yrs; I don't think it was even necessary from an admin point of view.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #2 on:** July 27, 2012, 02:48:46 AM »

Ethelred recently said something to the effect that Father Schmidberger was already running things in a way the Archbishop didn't approve in the final years.

What would be interesting is to find out how enough power shifted to have Bishop Williamson removed from Winona, and to have the seminarians who studied under him purged.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** July 27, 2012, 05:30:33 AM »

From what I remember going on at the time, the previous SG was not a bishop, and
when they held a General Chapter, Fellay was elected. That was '94, 3 years after
ABL died in '91. There was some criticism of electing a bishop to be Superior
General at the time, since ABL had taught that a bishop should not be the SG,
because that would make the Society look more like a "parallel Church." He did not
want to set up a parallel or permanent alternative to Roman Catholic. I remember
hearing some SSPX priests muttering their disapproval, but they would not speak out
openly about it, probably because they knew they would be punished.

Furthermore, it seems to me, that +Fellay was kind of "campaigning" for the election,
but not obviously. Meanwhile, the other 3 bishops were not trying to be elected, so
+Fellay had no competition. It was a little surreal at the time, as I recall. I'm sure
someone else has better data on this, as I was not really paying much attention to it
then. I was just getting started in the Traditional movement at the time.

As I recall, Bishop Williamson wasn't being "ostracized" in 1994 (when +Fellay
became SG).

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #4 on:** July 27, 2012, 05:50:36 AM »

Quote from: 1531

The first superior appointed was Fr Schmidberger. Mgr. Lefebvre was against the idea of having one of the bishops as superior as he feared it would place one of them over the other three, which would not be correct as all 4 were of equal standing. Mgr Lefebvre was proved to be right. +Fellay should never have been appointed afterward. It was a sad mistake by the Society, as we now witness.

Also their position was more specifically for the ordination of deacons and priests, to ensure the continuity of the priesthood in the SSPX, and also to administer the sacrament of Confirmation.

Yes, ABL consecrated 4 bishops to provide the Society with enough episcopal
versatility to give the traditional sacraments to the world, as the demand at that time
seemed to ask for. Again, his overriding concern was to avoid any appearance of a
parallel Church, or a permanent alternative to Roman Catholic. "We are Roman
Catholic" could have been his motto.

Quote

I must admit I do not know how +Fellay came to be appointed and why he stood. I also very much believe that another mistake by the Society was to elect any of them for such a long period of 12 yrs; I don't think it was even necessary from an admin point of view.

The election of the SG in the SSPX is not a publicly reported process. It is rather
shrouded in secrecy, something like a papal conclave. We saw just two weeks ago
how sequestered the GC was: that's nothing new. As for the 12 years, that is the
term that ABL put into the rules for the Society. Some have said that he didn't
expect this problem of Rome going off the rails to endure much more than 12 years.
We are now thinking that 12 years was a mistake, and it was also a mistake to not
put into the rules that a bishop could not be elected SG, and it was especially a
mistake to not put into the rules that a bishop couldn't be RE-ELECTED SG. Imagine,
if ABL had done any of those things, +Fellay would not have had this destructive
power trip going on today.